rewind2846:Mellotiger: rewind2846: Mellotiger: Yep, that's how home-schoolers are. My only problem with the article is when he brought up the civil war. Thing is, it actually was about states rights and not just slavery. If it was about slavery, the emancipation proclamation would have happened before the war. Think about it. If the war was about stopping slavery, wouldn't slavery have been made illegal first and them the war would come after the south refused to comply?

And another who cannot make logic connections.Lat me 'splain it to you, slowly... the Southern slaveholding states... fought as imagined sovereign territories... for the right... to own and traffic in... slaves. That is what they wanted the right to do, own and sell slaves. There was really nothing else that separated the two halves of the nation so distinctly as this.

Lincoln realized that the Proclamation would be useless unless those states were still part of the united states, so his goal was to make sure they continued to be a part of the whole, then apply the Emancipation Proclamation to the slaves held within. If you'll check, the Proclamation was signed in the third year of the war, january 1, 1863.

Maybe keep reading until you see some of my other responses. I'm not saying it did not involve slavery, but if you think that it was only slavery that it was about, and that the war was to free the slaves, then you don't know history, period. The states in the south did want the freedom to keep their "way of life"or whatever, but its much deeper than slavery vs non slavery. Its well known that the president had many doubts about the emancipation proclamation, and in fact is known to have said that he would have pushed to keep slavery legal if that would have saved the union, but that outcome was not in the cards. Feel free to respond and be as condescending as you wish, but your attitude will not change history or my logic at all.

No, I do not think that slavery was "all" the war was about, not by a longshot... but it was a major part of why the war was fought, because that "peculiar" institution was what made the south run, politically, economically, and most important, socially. Anyone who would disturb what to these people was a balanced system as the enemy, even through the civil rights era and southern rants about "outside northern agitators stirring up our good nigras". Slavery was such an integral part of who they were as a people, that asking them to give it up would be like asking someone to cut off their own arm."How dare they tell us what to do!" is an attitude many who whine about "states rights" still hold today.Slavery was the foundation of their lives, and they were not going to give it up without a fight, which they started at Fort Sumter.

btw, presidents have doubts about bills and laws that they draft and sign all the time. This was new territory, as an enslaved people had never been set free in this country before, especially one which had been in bondage for so long.

So you say I can't make logic connections because I said the war wasn't all about slavery, then you agree that the war was not only about slavery. Okay, I see where this is going. My only point was made in my Boobies, you know. Its been repeated several times now. And apparently we agree to some extent, so...what's next? Should we just continue to restate the same things, or is there actually an endgame? You say that slavery was the biggest contributing factor, and I agree. I do not agree, however, that the war was to end slavery, I hold that the war was to save the union. Where is the conflict here?

shortymac:Umm, Slavery was abolished in Canada and England before the civil war started.

Which has what to do with slavery in the united states?Here it wasn't just about business, it was about the very way of life for white people in the southern states that had slavery. It was part of who they were, and if they were going to give it up, they were going to do so on their terms and not because some northerner told them to.

From reading accounts of the time, I believe those who supported it actually NEEDED slavery, simply so that they would not have to deal with their own inadequacies and not just for economic reasons. Even whites who didn't own slaves (and most didn't) could point to the people picking cotton in the fields in the hot sun for 12 hours a day and say to themselves "I may not be much, but I'm better than them". Even when slavery ended and Jim Crow laws went into effect, the sentiment remained.

Mellotiger:rewind2846: Mellotiger: rewind2846: Mellotiger: Yep, that's how home-schoolers are. My only problem with the article is when he brought up the civil war. Thing is, it actually was about states rights and not just slavery. If it was about slavery, the emancipation proclamation would have happened before the war. Think about it. If the war was about stopping slavery, wouldn't slavery have been made illegal first and them the war would come after the south refused to comply?

And another who cannot make logic connections.Lat me 'splain it to you, slowly... the Southern slaveholding states... fought as imagined sovereign territories... for the right... to own and traffic in... slaves. That is what they wanted the right to do, own and sell slaves. There was really nothing else that separated the two halves of the nation so distinctly as this.

Lincoln realized that the Proclamation would be useless unless those states were still part of the united states, so his goal was to make sure they continued to be a part of the whole, then apply the Emancipation Proclamation to the slaves held within. If you'll check, the Proclamation was signed in the third year of the war, january 1, 1863.

Maybe keep reading until you see some of my other responses. I'm not saying it did not involve slavery, but if you think that it was only slavery that it was about, and that the war was to free the slaves, then you don't know history, period. The states in the south did want the freedom to keep their "way of life"or whatever, but its much deeper than slavery vs non slavery. Its well known that the president had many doubts about the emancipation proclamation, and in fact is known to have said that he would have pushed to keep slavery legal if that would have saved the union, but that outcome was not in the cards. Feel free to respond and be as condescending as you wish, but your attitude will not change history or my logic at all.

No, I do not think that slavery was "all" the war was about, not by a longshot... but it was a major part of why the war was fought, because that "peculiar" institution was what made the south run, politically, economically, and most important, socially. Anyone who would disturb what to these people was a balanced system as the enemy, even through the civil rights era and southern rants about "outside northern agitators stirring up our good nigras". Slavery was such an integral part of who they were as a people, that asking them to give it up would be like asking someone to cut off their own arm."How dare they tell us what to do!" is an attitude many who whine about "states rights" still hold today.Slavery was the foundation of their lives, and they were not going to give it up without a fight, which they started at Fort Sumter.

btw, presidents have doubts about bills and laws that they draft and sign all the time. This was new territory, as an enslaved people had never been set free in this country before, especially one which had been in bondage for so long.

So you say I can't make logic connections because I said the war wasn't all about slavery, then you agree that the war was not only about slavery. Okay, I see where this is going. My only point was made in my Boobies, you know. Its been repeated several times now. And apparently we agree to some extent, so...what's next? Should we just continue to restate the same things, or is there actually an endgame? You say that slavery was the biggest contributing factor, and I agree. I do not agree, however, that the war was to end slavery, I hold that the war was to save the union. Where is the conflict here?

Boobies? Are you farking kidding me? Pretty sure that was supposed to be "Boobies" or something, but I like the way it reads, even if it doesn't make sense.

I dunno, the government rant's pretty cut and dried, everyone falls on the "you're nuts" side of the spectrum. (Actually, it was too dull to bother to read for me. I have no trouble believing in damaged thinking and there are too many examples to ever both with one of them except perhaps in person.)

The one above totally sounds like things "clever" kids would tell me as to why their parents told them they were special, rather than maladjusted. So it's either true or a good imitation, and seems to have drawn fire from both sides.

But whatever. Usually I find accusations of trolling really tedious, but if that one was constructed, I would find it impressive since it resonated with me.

To be fair, the Prussian school system did serve as the model for our public schools. But a lot of countries use it too, and for the same reason we do. Our problems are not born out of the model, but for several other reasons. A big one being that our education system is underfunded.This system was chosen because it increases the overall education of a country's population, which has many benefits - less poverty, less crime, the country competes better in the world market, etc. Granted, the poorer members of the populace aren't as well-educated as the richer ones. However, the least educated person under this system is still more educated than they would be under the old system. The old system being private schools for the rich, and fark all for everyone else. I'm not sure what system the anti-schoolers would prefer us use. Any system that replaces the current one, with the exception of education only for the rich, would be at least equally underfunded.

Mellotiger:Mellotiger: rewind2846: Mellotiger: rewind2846: Mellotiger: Yep, that's how home-schoolers are. My only problem with the article is when he brought up the civil war. Thing is, it actually was about states rights and not just slavery. If it was about slavery, the emancipation proclamation would have happened before the war. Think about it. If the war was about stopping slavery, wouldn't slavery have been made illegal first and them the war would come after the south refused to comply?

And another who cannot make logic connections.Lat me 'splain it to you, slowly... the Southern slaveholding states... fought as imagined sovereign territories... for the right... to own and traffic in... slaves. That is what they wanted the right to do, own and sell slaves. There was really nothing else that separated the two halves of the nation so distinctly as this.

Lincoln realized that the Proclamation would be useless unless those states were still part of the united states, so his goal was to make sure they continued to be a part of the whole, then apply the Emancipation Proclamation to the slaves held within. If you'll check, the Proclamation was signed in the third year of the war, january 1, 1863.

Maybe keep reading until you see some of my other responses. I'm not saying it did not involve slavery, but if you think that it was only slavery that it was about, and that the war was to free the slaves, then you don't know history, period. The states in the south did want the freedom to keep their "way of life"or whatever, but its much deeper than slavery vs non slavery. Its well known that the president had many doubts about the emancipation proclamation, and in fact is known to have said that he would have pushed to keep slavery legal if that would have saved the union, but that outcome was not in the cards. Feel free to respond and be as condescending as you wish, but your attitude will not change history or my logic at all.

shortymac:My hubby and I are contemplating doing this, we're very worried about socialization though and other nutters.

Socialisation is simply not an issue unless you make it one. Homeschooled children can still make and play with friends, take part in sports and arts clubs; all they lose is exposure to one highly artificial environment.

HairBolus:Would you want your high school age children in public or private school taught by someone who didn't graduate from college? A whole bunch of homeschoolers think that that is a good idea.

The data presented do not support (or refute) that suggestion.

That said, it wouldn't worry me too much, given the wealth of online and printed resources available, as long as the parents were enthusiastic, encouraging and had good appreciation of the learning process.

itazurakko:Part of the public school experience is about learning how to govern yourself and get along in a group where everyone is on the surface equal, with the same status. You can learn to choose a leader, to lead, to make alliances and consensus.

Is that how public schools work, then? Perfect democracies where everyone is fully involved, nobody is ostracised ,nobody is bullied, nobody has unearned high status and everything is done by consensus? And, of course, there are no higher authorities laying down rules which all the supposedly equal must follow or be punished?

orbister:Is that how public schools work, then? Perfect democracies where everyone is fully involved, nobody is ostracised ,nobody is bullied, nobody has unearned high status and everything is done by consensus? And, of course, there are no higher authorities laying down rules which all the supposedly equal must follow or be punished?

Learning how to deal in massive groups was definitely an explicit part of my education, yes. It's one of the actual goals. You learn how to function in a group and work politics, make coalitions, and lead.

It's certainly not problem free, but the "oh, my kids are fine, they deal with adults and not other snot-nosed children, which is actually more sophisticated" also misses the mark quite a bit.

You can certainly manufacture other opportunities for your kids to get some of that - sports teams are a good and popular choice. I am complaining about the certain attitude that says that same-age peers interaction is not worth anything so it's actually better off that their kids don't waste their time on it (which you can find all over the place, particularly among the religious who like to cite bible verses about fools, the idea being that the only thing their kid will learn from same-age peers is misbehavior).

The article was okay but the examples of maladjusted homeschoolers were poor. Those kids sounded like they had emotional issues and/or were on the autism spectrum. I think public school would've been the worst place for them to be. I can only imagine the beatings they'd get both physically and emotionally.

If we can't afford a decent private school, my husband and I will homeschool our kid. Public schools are a meat grinder. All the worry about having socially well adjusted kids is a concern but "well adjusted" is a term used in factories for machine cogs that function correctly. I have higher hopes for my son.

The Prussian School System was designed to create obedient soldiers and factory workers who wouldn't get bored with monotony and would respect and crave authority. America is all out of factory jobs. It's a shiatty system and a big part of the reason why so many Germans embraced Nazism. (Godwinner!)

Our public schools are some of the best in our state (the bar is low) and we're keeping our son out of them to avoid the Jesus freaks (we were the first district to require "Evolution is just a theory" disclaimer stickers on biology textbooks.) Then there are the psychotic jocks, teachers who molest the kids, self imposed racial segregation, kids who are so spoiled that their first car is worth the last 4 of mine put together and general assholes.

Oh and please tell me that the anti-vaxxers taking their child to India are an imagined couple designed to rile up comments. I have a feeling that if it's true, there will be a Fark thread about a Cholera outbreak about the same time they return home.

schubie:The article was okay but the examples of maladjusted homeschoolers were poor. Those kids sounded like they had emotional issues and/or were on the autism spectrum. I think public school would've been the worst place for them to be. I can only imagine the beatings they'd get both physically and emotionally.

If we can't afford a decent private school, my husband and I will homeschool our kid. Public schools are a meat grinder. All the worry about having socially well adjusted kids is a concern but "well adjusted" is a term used in factories for machine cogs that function correctly. I have higher hopes for my son.

The Prussian School System was designed to create obedient soldiers and factory workers who wouldn't get bored with monotony and would respect and crave authority. America is all out of factory jobs. It's a shiatty system and a big part of the reason why so many Germans embraced Nazism. (Godwinner!)

Our public schools are some of the best in our state (the bar is low) and we're keeping our son out of them to avoid the Jesus freaks (we were the first district to require "Evolution is just a theory" disclaimer stickers on biology textbooks.) Then there are the psychotic jocks, teachers who molest the kids, self imposed racial segregation, kids who are so spoiled that their first car is worth the last 4 of mine put together and general assholes.

Are you really so naïve as to believe private schools will avoid the "Public schools are a meat grinder" syndrome? My SiL sent her mildly dyslexic child to one in Manhattan...my brother sent his two smaller-than-average identical twin boys to another in NC. Result? "(P)sychotic jocks, teachers who molest the kids, self imposed racial segregation, kids who are so spoiled that their first car is worth the last 4 of mine put together and general assholes" are everywhere. Video at 11.

I'm not talking about The Jesus Academy For Your Drug Addicted Brats. I'm thinking of a Sudbury or Montessori school. Those are much better models and every time I've visited one, I've seen the creative, curious kids learning at their own pace, all ages cooperating and teaching one another. This is closest to the kind of education Americans used to get that enabled guys like Lincoln, Twain and Edison to be great thinkers despite having half the education of most Farkers.

schubie:The article was okay but the examples of maladjusted homeschoolers were poor. Those kids sounded like they had emotional issues and/or were on the autism spectrum. I think public school would've been the worst place for them to be. I can only imagine the beatings they'd get both physically and emotionally.

If we can't afford a decent private school, my husband and I will homeschool our kid. Public schools are a meat grinder. All the worry about having socially well adjusted kids is a concern but "well adjusted" is a term used in factories for machine cogs that function correctly. I have higher hopes for my son.

The Prussian School System was designed to create obedient soldiers and factory workers who wouldn't get bored with monotony and would respect and crave authority. America is all out of factory jobs. It's a shiatty system and a big part of the reason why so many Germans embraced Nazism. (Godwinner!)

Our public schools are some of the best in our state (the bar is low) and we're keeping our son out of them to avoid the Jesus freaks (we were the first district to require "Evolution is just a theory" disclaimer stickers on biology textbooks.) Then there are the psychotic jocks, teachers who molest the kids, self imposed racial segregation, kids who are so spoiled that their first car is worth the last 4 of mine put together and general assholes.

check into some of the 'charter schools', if available... I live in Indiana... there was a big push by the GOP for school vouchers (get kids out of those 'evil' public schools full of those 'union' teachers and into nice Christian private schools... and more importantly get the money from the public schools into the private christian schools)... but one of the results was a very highly regarded charter high school opened up within our public school corporation... I'm not sure if this was the intention when it started, but what it quickly became was more like a gifted and talented academy than a regular public school... the teachers that chose to got there were some of the better ones in several areas... and the students that chose to go there were some of the best from several of the area high schools... they don't have all the distractions of a regular public school (sports teams...) but it is getting some amazing results.

however, if you'll notice their enrollment is rather small and even more telling is the numbers per grade... 115 freshmen... down to about 60 seniors... the kids that can't cut it.. leave and go back to regular public high schools... but it is amazing what a school can be like when all the kids there are kids who really want to learn... none of the 'problem kids' go there... they go to regular public schools and take up about 80% of the teacher's and administrator's time and effort... while the 'good' kids get more or less ignored.

orbister:HairBolus: Some of the problems with homeschoolers is that they are trying to clone themselves and if their kids are stupid in the same way they are then that is good.

You don't think that might be a little bit of a generalisation? Particularly in a thread filled with people saying "I went to school so all children should go to school and become just like me"?

You appear to be exhibiting the delusional xenophobic thinking of some home schoolers. They don't see any advantage of sending kids where they will be exposed to many points of view, from both the students and teachers. Instead such places are an indoctrination into a uniform evil group-think. These homeschoolers seem afraid to let their kids make their own choices and decisions because maybe they will decide that their parents aren't right about everything.

I was home schooled and this almost an exact description of my experience. I knew some really weird kids but having well balanced parents and friends outside of the home schooling community kept me pretty balanced.

HairBolus:orbister: You don't think that might be a little bit of a generalisation? Particularly in a thread filled with people saying "I went to school so all children should go to school and become just like me"?

You appear to be exhibiting the delusional xenophobic thinking of some home schoolers. They don't see any advantage of sending kids where they will be exposed to many points of view, from both the students and teachers. Instead such places are an indoctrination into a uniform evil group-think. These homeschoolers seem afraid to let their kids make their own choices and decisions because maybe they will decide that their parents aren't right about everything.

How kind and perceptive you are. As it happens, I have nothing against school as a concept, although I take issue with quite a lot about how schools are currently implemented. What I found amusing was the accusation that homeschoolers all want little copies of themselves, in a thread where the school-or-nothing faction have generally been saying everyone should have the experiences and learning outcomes at school which they had themselves. Who, in other words, wants the little clones?

And now you come along, telling me that I don't want children to make their own choices and decisions, and demanding instead that they all go to school where they can follow a set curriculum and a set timetable.

I'm that jerk:I was home schooled and this almost an exact description of my experience. I knew some really weird kids but having well balanced parents and friends outside of the home schooling community kept me pretty balanced.

Nutty parents produce nutty kids, whether the kids go to school or not. Well-balanced parents produce well-balance kids, whether the kids go to school or not.

There may be a higher chance that nutty parents choose to home educate, but the resulting nuttiness would have happened whatever sort of education the children had.

orbister:I'm that jerk: I was home schooled and this almost an exact description of my experience. I knew some really weird kids but having well balanced parents and friends outside of the home schooling community kept me pretty balanced.

Nutty parents produce nutty kids, whether the kids go to school or not. Well-balanced parents produce well-balance kids, whether the kids go to school or not.

There may be a higher chance that nutty parents choose to home educate, but the resulting nuttiness would have happened whatever sort of education the children had.

I agree with you, after reading the article the action of some of these parents are probably putting kids into the autism spectrum and giving them some neurosis. The isolation only compounds the horrible parenting.

My parents are neo-cons and I didn't socialize very well as a kid, despite going to public school. I ended up learning social mores around middle school and after getting a job and the internet in high school I was being exposed to various people and I left the neo-con movement.

HairBolus:orbister: HairBolus: Some of the problems with homeschoolers is that they are trying to clone themselves and if their kids are stupid in the same way they are then that is good.

You don't think that might be a little bit of a generalisation? Particularly in a thread filled with people saying "I went to school so all children should go to school and become just like me"?

You appear to be exhibiting the delusional xenophobic thinking of some home schoolers. They don't see any advantage of sending kids where they will be exposed to many points of view, from both the students and teachers. Instead such places are an indoctrination into a uniform evil group-think. These homeschoolers seem afraid to let their kids make their own choices and decisions because maybe they will decide that their parents aren't right about everything.